5 ms·
While I appreciate the effort, claiming that is it "pure CSS" is not true. The page is made out of 235 divs, and divs are not CSS but HTML.
by mrtbld 13y ago
While I appreciate the effort, claiming that is it "pure CSS" is not true. The page is made out of 235 divs, and divs are not CSS but HTML.
- code_duck 13y agoThere is no CSS without HTML. And, there is no HTML without CSS as browsers contain built in style sheets.
- boomlinde 13y ago> there is no HTML without CSS * HTML 2.0: 1995 * CSS 1: 1996 That must have been a hard year for HTML 2.0, not to mention half a decade for HTML altogether.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- code_duck 13y agoYes, things were definitely different 17 years ago.
- mrtbld 13y agoYou're right. I know that CSS needs to be applied to a document; without a document there's nothing to be styled. Still, to me saying that something is in "pure" CSS would imply that the HTML is not more complicated than e.g.: <div id=homer></div> (I guess that making a drawing such as the ones in the OP using only one div would not be possible until browsers accept pseudo-elements to be defined on top of other pseudo-elements.) I understand that by "pure" the author meant "without using images". But IMHO using dozens of empty div elements isn't "pure" CSS.
- code_duck 13y agoI see what you mean. Saying CSS/HTML would be a more precise way of describing this.